|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:It's innovative if nothing else. Ramming vehicles during pursuits is nothing new, ramming human beings? Pretty sure that's a new one. No real reason you can't use the car to knock him over, I suppose; and this one worked out in the end, since he probably ends up (justifiably) shot dead otherwise.
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Some of them had bones? My goodness.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Obviously in a perfect world she doesn't get murdered; but after that happens, it seems like your best possible outcome is a peaceful surrender with no other shots fired, and nobody else hurt, and the bad guy charged with murder, and they managed to do that. Strikes me as a situation that could've ended a whole lot worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:There's enough to go to a jury though based on the video tape that he didn't actually have reasonable suspicion that she was armed to conduct the Terry search. Wouldn't need it, at least here. We've interpreted Mimms to say that an officer can order a driver or passenger out of the car during a lawful stop regardless, and I'd imagine Texas is similar.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
nm posted:If it is like California's juvi system, they "passed" competency evals to be tried as adults. And all it really means is that the elected judge (remember wisconsin is the place you can buy your way on the supreme court) determined that they had enough mental capacity to be tried as adults, which really means he decided this was a high profile case and in the next election if he had them tried as juviniles he's see attack ads calling him weak on murderers. The operative bits seem to be WI statutes 938.183 and 970.032, which provide that the adult court has original jurisdiction over juveniles as young as 10(!) charged with attempted or completed first-degree murder. The juvenile gets a PC hearing where the judge has to find PC and then decide whether or not to transfer the case to juvi court, relying on whether the defense can prove that (1) adult court can't treat her adequately, (2) transfer won't undermine the seriousness of the offense, and (3) adult court isn't necessary to deter bad things. Doesn't sound like competency is built in, though I assume they're going to get evaluated at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:She is charged with two misdemeanors: resisting arrest and possession of marijuana. Investigators say they found .02 ounces of marijuana on her. On her, or in her?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? For breath testing, there's the PBT (what most people think of when they think "breathalyzer"), which is the road-side test that's done along with the field sobriety tests. The results generally aren't admissible in court because it's not very accurate, but it's helpful to detect the presence of the alcohol and help create PC for an arrest. Then there's the Intoxilyzer 8000, which is the current model of a series of evidentiary breath testing machines that a lot of places use. Those results are admissible in court and the defense gets to challenge them citing partition ratios, hematocrits, or whatever the hot new trend is. Some places will use the PBT but skip the Intox and rely on blood testing, like you mentioned. Some use breath only. Some use both, and their cases very rarely go to trial.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Veskit posted:So you two are totally cool with a kid getting shot running away if he happened to point a gun, or had one on his person? Pointing (or firing) the gun while running would be textbook justification; the trickier scenarios are 1) Has a gun on him and doesn't touch it, but makes a move that the officer interprets as reaching for a weapon, or 2) Doesn't have a gun, but makes a move that the officer interprets as reaching for a weapon. 1 is probably justified and 2 might be, depending on the facts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I don't know about the US but in Canada, before considering exclusion for a breach of someone's rights (which doesn't guarantee exclusion), a statement has to be proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt in order to even be admissible. An explicit promise for a specific favourable result would almost certainly result in a finding that it wasn't voluntary and not admissible, so you wouldn't have officers stating it that clearly. Yup. At least here, confessions are presumed involuntary and it's the State's burden (by preponderance, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) to show that any statements were voluntarily made considering all the circumstances. Any promise that the Defendant relies on means a suppression motion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:I'm curious: an officer can (like anyone else) plead the 5th in court, but could they hypothetically still be fired for failing to follow procedure by not filing a report on their own shooting, or do 5thA protections extend to the workplace too? Everyone has the right not to be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves. Garrity says that in the context of government employment, threatening termination is compulsion for 5th amendment purposes, and so a government employee can't be forced to make an incriminating statement under threat of termination. This means that a government employer will proceed in one of two ways: by removing the incrimination (any statements the employee is compelled to make can be used in internal disciplinary proceedings but not criminal proceedings), or removing the compulsion (the employee has the right not to make a statement, but any statements made are fair game for criminal prosecution). In the first hypo, the employee could be fired solely for refusing to give a statement. In the second, he probably couldn't. That applies if you're talking about a police officer, or a state-funded public defender, or an employee of a public university, but most people work for private employers. The Chase corporation is bounded by employment and contract law, but not the First or the Fifth; so if you're an employee there, your boss can (and probably will) demand a full accounting of any screw-ups and fire you for not cooperating. This doesn't implicate your right against self-incrimination because it's not the government you're dealing with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:29
|
|